Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices toward Plastic Pollution among Malaysians: Implications for Minimizing Plastic Use and Pollution

Abstract

Excessive production, consumption, and indiscriminate disposal of plastic waste contribute to plastic pollution, which has a negative impact on the environment and human health. The KAP (knowledge, attitude, and practices) study is thought to be useful in mitigating plastic pollution because understanding the public’s knowledge, attitude, and practices toward plastic pollution can help identify problems and challenges, allowing appropriate policy decisions to be made to set up plans or implement interventions. This study assesses Malaysians’ level of knowledge, attitude, and practices toward plastic pollution, as well as the variation of plastic pollution related to KAP among various socio-demographic groups. For this study, an online survey received 294 valid responses. Descriptive statistics, KAP scoring, and response cross-tabulation were calculated. This study received 294 valid responses via an online survey. Descriptive statistics, KAP scoring, and response cross-tabulation were estimated. A one-way analysis of variance, paired t-test, and binary logistic regressions was performed. Respondents’ overall knowledge score (95% CI mean score: 3.88–10.94 on a scale of 11) and practice score (95% CI 1.09–6.53 on a scale of 6) were poor across socio-demographics when a cut point of 80% was used. Older (>46 years) respondents seemed to have more knowledge than younger (18–30 years) respondents (odds ratio, OR 4.304; p < 0.01). However, respondents between the ages of 31 and 45 reported significantly (p < 0.01) higher attitudes (OR 4.019) and practices (OR 4.056; p < 0.05). Respondents with environmental-related university education had a higher likelihood of knowing about plastic pollution (OR 10.343; p < 0.01). To encourage good practices toward minimizing plastic use and pollution, conclusions are drawn about undertaking interventions such as raising environmental awareness, incorporating plastic pollution topics into formal and informal education, and providing recycling facilities in nearby communities.

1. Introduction

People widely use plastic products because they are durable, inexpensive, and lightweight, resulting in the widespread use and disposal of plastic products [1]. Their excessive production and consumption have caused plastic pollution that impacts both society and the environment [1,2]. For instance, the annual global production of plastic has increased by around 200 times from the year 1950 to 2015 [3]. Between 1950 and 2015, about 8.3 billion metric tons of virgin plastics were produced worldwide, of which 6.4 billion metric tons were used and disposed of [3]. Another report has stated that the annual production of plastic doubled from 156 metric tons to 353 metric tons between 2000 and 2019 [4]. About 79% of disposed plastics were dropped in landfills, followed by recycling (9%) and incineration (12%) [3]. Besides that, the recent emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic also caused an increase in the usage of single-use plastics and personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and face masks, which also contribute to both macro- and micro-plastic pollution [5,6,7]. For instance, the production of face masks in China increased to 116 million per day in February 2020, which was 12 times higher than that of the pre-COVID-19 pandemic [5].

Plastic affects the environment and human health at every stage of its lifecycle, which includes the extraction and transportation of raw materials, the manufacturing of plastic products, the usage of plastics, and finally, the management of plastic waste [8]. The most visible impacts of plastic pollution are the ingestion, suffocation, and entanglement of plastic debris by animals [9]. Ingestion and accumulation of plastic in the gut can cause obstruction and inflammation in many organs in a wide range of living creatures [10]. Furthermore, larger plastic waste can degrade into plastic fragments like micro- or nano-plastics and enter food chains, leading to bioaccumulation and biomagnification of toxicity in higher trophic-level predators [10]. These plastic fragments can enter the human body through consumption via food or water and inhalation via air [11]. Past studies also show that plastic fragments can be found in human stools [12], and recent research shows that microplastics are found in human blood for the first time [11]. Moreover, the disposal of plastic waste in landfills and domestic burning systems can lead to climate change, air pollution, and soil pollution [8,13]. For instance, the burning of plastic waste with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) contributes to dioxin emissions, and this persistent and bio-accumulative toxin can lead to air or soil pollution [8]. The wider use of plastic products has implications for the overall policy of sustainable development because plastic pollution has become a symbol of an environmental crisis [14].

Malaysia is one of the largest plastic production countries in the world, with over 1300 plastic manufacturers [15]. It produces around 0.5–1.9 kg per capita per day of municipal waste, with plastic waste being the second highest (24%) among different types of waste [16,17,18,19]. Besides, Malaysia depends heavily on the disposal of waste in landfills and domestic burning systems, which can cause increased plastic pollution with detrimental impacts on the environment and human health. In addition, Malaysia also has a very low recycling rate, which is inadequate for dealing with the amount of plastic waste produced [20].

Even though people’s understanding of plastic pollution has increased due to social practices, the production and consumption of plastic products still prevail [21,22]. Based on a review of people’s perceptions of plastic pollution, Heidbreder et al. [1] reported that people value and use plastic despite its potential harm to the environment. There is no consensus on how to solve plastic pollution [23]. There are several suggestions, such as the use of alternatives, such as reusable water bottles and bags made of alternative materials like glass or biodegradable materials and cloth [24], and the sensible use of plastics (reduction, proper handling, and recycling) to minimize plastic pollution [23,25]. However, people’s behaviour (e.g., “throwaway culture”) connected to single-used plastic items without caring about the environment is regarded as a major concern for plastic pollution [24]. There has been very little attention paid to people’s attitudes or behaviours about the hazards of plastic when interventions are designed for the reduction of plastic problems [26]. People having relevant knowledge is recognized as an important and influential factor affecting behaviour, practices, and the implementation of recycling programs [27,28]. It has been reported that attitudes and knowledge related to plastic pollution can influence people’s behaviour [29].

The KAP (knowledge, attitude, and practices) study is believed to be useful in mitigating plastic pollution, as understanding the knowledge, attitude, and practices of the public towards plastic pollution can help people understand more about their immediate surroundings and respect environmental issues so that local authorities can proceed with segmentation and channel mitigation efforts effectively [16]. It is a representative tool used to measure the extent of a known situation for a specific population, such as their knowledge gaps, cultural beliefs, and behavioural patterns [30]. This also allows us to identify their current needs, problems, and challenges, which helps us set plans or implement intervention priorities and make decisions. Besides that, the KAP study allows us to deepen our understanding of commonly known KAP factors that influence behaviour [30]. It investigates human behaviour in relation to a specific topic and identifies what people understand about it (knowledge), how they feel about it (attitude), and how they put their knowledge and attitude into action (practice) [31,32]. Even though it was extensively used in population studies, KAP is now often used in environmental studies [33,34].

Some recent research has investigated the KAP of Malaysians towards domestic waste management and recycling [35,36,37], the KAP of Malaysians towards sustainable consumption [33], waste management [34,35], and the determinants of the behaviour and perspective of the public towards plastic management [2,16]. These studies found that university students have a moderate level of knowledge, awareness, and practice when it comes to domestic waste management; a high level of knowledge but a moderate level of attitude and practice when it comes to sustainable consumption; good knowledge, a positive attitude, and less practice when it comes to open-burning problems; and more positive and supportive attitudes toward plastic recycling and the ban on single-use plastics.

Outside Malaysia, Srinivasan et al. [38] and Khanam et al. [39] reported that the majority of the sample students in India know about plastic pollution and have a positive attitude towards giving up plastic use, but only one-third of them show good practice. Kenyan youths perceive single-use plastics as a serious environmental and health issue and are willing to switch to reusable alternatives [40].

In Malaysia, we found no previous research that assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practices of the public towards plastic pollution. Therefore, this study was conducted with the following objectives:

(1)

To assess the level of knowledge, attitude, and practices towards plastic pollution among Malaysians aged 18 years and above, and

(2)

To understand the socio-demographic factors that influence respondents’ perceptions of plastic pollution related to KAP. These socio-demographic factors include gender, age, education, and occupation.

This research paper is based on an undergraduate thesis (Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice towards Plastic Pollution among Residents of Malaysia: Across-sectional study) submitted to the University of Nottingham Malaysia 2022, and the copyright belongs to the first author of this article. It is anticipated that the findings of this study will provide useful information for waste management authorities to take action towards reducing plastic use and pollution in the country.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection Approach

An online survey was conducted to understand the KAP among the residents of Malaysia aged 18 years and older towards plastic pollution. A structured questionnaire was developed for this study based on our prior experience and the following [15,16,17,24,41]. The draft questionnaire was reviewed by three researchers and pre-tested with 10 respondents. Based on the feedback, some questions were added, eliminated, or rephrased for clarity. The final questionnaire consisted of 33 multiple-choice questions in four sections: (1) socio-demographic information; (2) knowledge of plastic pollution; (3) attitude towards plastic pollution measures; and (4) practices towards plastic use and pollution reduction (Table S1). The questionnaire was prepared in English.

The study population for this study was both Malaysian and non-Malaysian residents living in Malaysia during the study period and aged 18 years and above. A Google form link was shared through email and social media platforms such as Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Telegram. Respondents were asked to share the link with friends and relatives to achieve a snowball sample. The form was available from 29 November 2021 to 15 February 2022, and 302 responses were obtained.

This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Nottingham Malaysia Science and Engineering Research Ethics Committee (Application Identification Number: CKKC151121). Participation in this survey was voluntary and anonymous, and respondents were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Respondents’ online consent was ensured with the following statement: “I read the brief information on study objectives and provided my consent to participate in the survey.”

2.2. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage), KAP scoring, and cross-tabulation of responses were estimated. For KAP scoring, 1 mark was given when respondents answered the question correctly/”yes”, 0.5 was given when they answered “maybe/sometimes”, and 0 mark was given when they answered the question wrongly/”no”. As for the cross-tabulation of KAP status, an 80% cut point was used to determine good and poor status. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a paired t-test were conducted to assess the relationship between KAP scores and the socio-demographic factors of the respondents. Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association between the explanatory variables (i.e., socio-demographic factors and knowledge status) and dependent variables (i.e., KAP status, attitude, and practice variables). Our assumption was that these explanatory variables would have an influence on the dependent variables in this study. Researchers [21,24,28,42,43] reported that socio-demographic variables, including gender, age, education, area of studies, occupation, household size, and income, have significant associations with plastic use (practice), recycling (attitude), and knowledge about plastic pollution. The coding for binary regression was 1 for “yes” or the correct answer and 0 for “no,” “maybe”, “sometimes”, or wrong answer. The odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the strength of the association with p < 0.05. The Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients were used for testing the goodness of fit of the binary logistic regression models.

3. Results

3.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Among the 302 responses, there were only nine non-Malaysians, and we excluded them from the data analysis due to the low numbers. As a result, the total number of respondents was 294 in the end. Females were dominant (72.4%) in the survey, and the majority of the respondents (75.5%) belonged to the 18–30-year age range (

Table 1. Socio-demographic distribution of respondents.

Variable	Frequency (N = 294)	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	81	27.6
Female	213	72.4
Age range (years)
18–30	222	75.5
31–45	37	12.6
Above 46	35	11.9
Highest education level
Up to secondary schooling	21	7.1
Pre-university	50	17.0
University (Environment related subjects)	50	17.0
University (Non-environment related subjects)	173	58.8
Occupation
Jobs in government and private sectors	63	21.4
Professional	17	5.8
Students	177	60.2
Others (business, homemaker, retired &unemployed)	37	12.6

). More than 75% of the respondents had university-level education and were students by occupation (60.2%). The dominance of younger ages (18–30 years), university-level education, and students as respondents revealed that they were active on social media and willing to volunteer in online surveys. A total of 17% of respondents had a university education in an environmental field.

3.2. Assessment of KAP Responses

The majority of the respondents were aware that plastic pollution could affect the environment and human health at every stage of its lifecycle (94.2%), as well as the negative impact of incineration of plastic waste (95.6%) (Table S2). However, more than 50% of the respondents were not aware that discarded plastic causes harmful effects on organisms, plastic can degrade into plastic fragments, and microplastics can be inhaled through the air. On the attitude side (see Table S3), most of the respondents agreed that plastic pollution is the biggest environmental problem (84.4%), that plastic pollution is severe in Malaysia (86.4%), that the public has the responsibility for reducing plastic pollution in Malaysia (90.8%), that an increase in the public’s awareness can help in mitigating plastic pollution (86.4%), that littering or mismanagement of plastic wastes can cause plastic pollution (92.9%), and that plastic that ends up in landfills or the ocean can harm human health and the environment (92.5%). However, the respondents’ level of plastic use and pollution reduction practices differed from their attitudes. Only one-third of respondents (33.3%) stated to separate plastic waste from other household waste; 49% of respondents do not or sometimes recycle plastic waste, around 30% of them use reusable bags for shopping, and 89% of respondents purchase plastic-made products (Table S4).

3.3. Respondents’ KAPScores towards Plastic Pollution

The findings of this study show that respondents had poor average knowledge scores (95% CI 3.88–10.94, on a scale of 11) and practice scores (95% CI 1.09–6.53, on a scale of 6) across all socio-demographic groups (

Table 2. Socio-demographic distribution of the respondents and their KAP scores.

Variable		Knowledge Score (95% CI)	$\mathit{t}/\mathit{F}$ Test	p- Value	Attitude Score (95% CI)	$\mathit{t}/\mathit{F}$ Test	p- Value	Practice Score (95% CI)	$$\begin{gathered} \mathit{t}/\mathit{F} \\ \mathbf{Test} \end{gathered}$$	p-Value
Overall (mean)		3.88, 10.94			5.98, 10.92			1.09, 6.53
Gender	Male	4.09, 10.95	0.641	0.522	5.74, 11.18	−0.27	0.522	0.68, 6.68	−0.80	0.424
	Female	3.77, 10.95			6.33, 10.61			1.21, 6.43
Age	18–30	3.78, 10.88	0.70	0.381	6.30, 10.62	0.62	0.539	1.03, 6.41	2.64	0.073
	31–45	4.55, 11.01			6.32, 10.94			1.66, 6.88
	Above46	3.57, 11.37			5.19, 11.47			0.85, 6.53
Education	Up to Secondary	3.65, 9.93	4.03	0.008	5.47, 10.91	1.80	0.147	1.45, 6.07	0.81	0.491
	Pre-University	3.21, 10.81			5.27, 11.31			1.51, 6.33
	University (Environment)	4.32, 11.84			7.07, 10.45			1.44, 6.54
	University (Non-Environment)	4.05, 10.75			6.31, 10.63			0.81, 6.57
Occupation	Jobs in government & private sectors	3.57, 11.21	0.50	0.684	5.57, 11.01	2.10	0.101	0.95, 6.55	0.51	0.679
	Professional	4.26, 11.08			6.22, 11.36			0.29, 6.83
	Student	3.95, 10.97			6.60, 10.52			1.14, 6.40
	Others	3.72, 10.5			5.32, 11.00			1.25, 6.77

). The average knowledge score of environmental-related university students (95% CI 4.32–11.84) was significantly higher than that of other educational groups (p < 0.01). This reveals that respondents who had environmental education at the tertiary level enhanced their knowledge of plastic pollution. There were no effects of socio-demographic characteristics on attitudes and practices, as these scores were not significantly different across socio-demographic groups.

Furthermore,

Table 3. Cross tabulation of good and poor attitudes and practices with respect to the participants’ plastic pollution knowledge status.

		Knowledge (n) (%)
		Good 80 (27.2)	Poor 214 (72.8)
Attitudes	Good (n) (column %) (% of total)	57 (71.2) (19.4)	129 (60.3) (43.9)
	Poor (n) (column %) (% of total)	23 (28.8) (7.8)	85 (39.7) (28.9)
Practices	Good (n) (column %) (% of total)	22 (27.5) (7.5)	22 (10.3) (7.5)
	Poor (n) (column %) (% of total)	58 (72.5) (19.7)	192 (89.7) (65.3)

shows that 28.9% of the respondents belonged to the “poor knowledge with poor attitude” group and 65.3% to the “poor knowledge with poor practice” group. Only 27.2% of the respondents demonstrated good knowledge, while 19.4% had good attitudes, and 7.5% showed good practices. Among the respondents with good knowledge, 7.8% exhibited poor attitudes, and 19.7% demonstrated poor practices. These results show that among those respondents with “good knowledge,” many of them exhibit poor attitudes and practices.

3.4. Socio-Demographic Factors Associated with KAP Scores

Elder respondents (above 46 years) possessed significantly (p < 0.01) higher knowledge of plastic pollution (by a 4.304 factor) compared to younger respondents (18–30 years) (

Table 4. Binary logistic regression of the KAP scores with different socio-demographic variables of the respondents (values are odds ratio followed by 95% confidence interval in parenthesis).

Variable		OR (95% CI)
		Knowledge	Attitude	Practice
Gender	Male	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
	Female	0.960 (0.495–1.863)	1.086 (0.598–1.974)	0.673 (0.309–1.465)
Age	18–30	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
	31–45	2.051 (0.719–5.850)	4.019 ** (1.495–10.807)	4.056 * (1.145–14.364)
	Above 46	4.304 ** (1.451–12.766)	2.316 (0.895–5.993)	1.416 (0.346–5.797)
Education	Up to Secondary	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
	Pre-University	2.509 (0.471–13.353)	0.698 (0.221–2.202)	1.811 (0.306–10.734)
	University (Environment)	10.343 ** (1.992–53.690)	1.352 (0.402–4.551)	3.835 (0.648–22.693)
	University (Non-Environment)	4.110 (0.866–19.509)	0.679 (0.237–1.951)	3.017 (0.585–15.572)
Occupation	Jobs in government & private sectors	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)	1.00 (reference)
	Professional	2.031 (0.619–6.661)	1.363 (0.415–4.481)	1.896 (0.395–9.101)
	Student	1.791 (0.708–4.531)	2.026 (0.944–4.351)	3.743 (0.982–14.256)
	Others	0.811 (0.280–2.351)	1.056 (0.425–2.625)	5.262 * (1.473–18.794)

* Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level.

). The reason might be due to the long-life experiences of older respondents, so they are more aware of the current plastic pollution situation. Respondents between the ages of 31 and 45 reported significantly (p < 0.01) higher attitudes (OR 4.019; p < 0.05) and practices (OR 4.056; p < 0.05) than respondents between the ages of 18 and 30. This may be due to their higher level of acceptance of plastic pollution-related measures. Compared to respondents with secondary education, respondents with environmentally related university education had a higher likelihood of knowing about plastic pollution (OR 10.343; p < 0.01). This indicates that respondents with environmental-related education have more knowledge of plastic pollution because they have a pollution-related curriculum in their study programs. On the other hand, respondents (retired, homemakers, unemployed, and business owners) demonstrated significantly higher practice status (OR 5.25; p < 0.05) compared to that of students, professionals, and government and private sector employees.

3.5. Association between Attitude with Socio-Demographic Factors and Knowledge Status

Respondents aged between 31 and 46 years showed higher agreement (by a 2.75 factor) in banning the use of single-use plastics in Malaysia (OR 2.75; p < 0.05), and they were more confident in stopping the use of single-use plastics in their daily lives (OR 7.43; p < 0.01) than the respondents in other age categories (

Table 5. Binary logistic regression of different variables of attitude with socio-demographic variables and knowledge status (values are odds ratio followed by 95% confidence interval in parenthesis).

Explanatory Variable(s)	Plastic Pollution as Biggest Problems	Severeness of Plastic Pollution in Malaysia	Government Action in Reducing Plastic Pollution	Public Responsibility	Public’s Awareness	Littering or Causes of Plastic Pollution	Taxation on Single-Use Plastics	Banning the Use of Singles-Use Plastics	Plastics in Landfills Can Harm Human Health	Stop the Use of Single-Use Plastic in Daily Life
Gender
Male (ref)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Female	1.98 (0.95–4.13)	0.90 (0.38–2.10)	0.69 (0.35–1.36)	0.58 (0.20–1.68)	1.37 (0.62–3.03)	1.54 (0.54–4.35)	1.11 (0.62–1.99)	0.63 (0.35–1.13)	0.57 (1.67–1.92)	0.35 (0.19–0.67)
Age range (years)
18–30 (ref)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
31–45	2.15 (0.65–1.13)	1.82 (0.46–7.12)	0.84 (0.29–2.38)	1.79 (0.38–8.52)	1.25 (0.38–4.04)	1.42 (0.31–6.57)	1.50 (0.61–3.72)	2.75 (1.11–6.86) *	3.02 (0.30–30.76)	7.43 (2.56–21.53) **
Above 46	0.91 (0.30–2.72)	0.73 (0.20–2.75)	0.70 (0.24–2.06)	2.40 (0.47–12.16)	2.37 (0.61–9.18)	2.0 (0.4–10.10)	1.62 (0.63–4.21)	1.54 (0.60–3.97)	0.52 (0.11–2.52)	1.98 (0.74–21.53)
Highest education level
Up to secondary (ref)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Pre-university	0.71 (0.15–3.30)	1.41 (0.37–5.43)	1.87 (0.60–5.84)	1.89 (0.44–8.17)	1.21 (0.29–5.01)	0.45 (0.08–2.67)	1.12 (0.38–3.27)	1.12 (0.38–3.30)	1.31 (0.25–6.76)	5.15 (1.54–17.21) *
University (Environment)	0.54 (0.11–2.70)	3.33 (0.61–18.08)	1.41 (0.43–4.64)	6.06 (0.87–42.43)	1.02 (0.23–4.53)	0.60 (0.08–4.41)	1.67 (0.53–5.24)	1.57 (0.51–4.87)	0.88 (0.14–5.43)	7.46 (2.09–26.65) *
University (Non-environment)	0.55 (0.14–2.21)	2.02 (0.59–7.01)	1.66 (0.60–4.62)	2.91 (0.74–11.38)	1.21 (0.34–4.31)	1.34 (0.23–7.77)	1.38 (0.52–3.68)	1.17 (0.44–3.13)	2.82 (0.56–14.12)	4.31 (1.40–13.32) *
Occupation
Jobs in government & private sectors (ref)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Professional	1.83 (0.43–7.70)	0.60 (0.13–2.86)	1.80 (0.36–9.10)	0.87 (0.08–8.97)	3.36 (0.39–29.22)	1.43 (0.14–14.34)	3.41 (0.97–12.04) *	1.81 (0.58–5.63)	5.570E7 (0.01–0.001)	1.63 (0.45–5.84)
Student	2.41 (0.96–6.11)	1.32 (0.46–3.78)	0.72 (0.30–1.73)	0.99 (0.26–3.75)	1.59 (0.59–4.33)	2.17 (0.56–8.36)	2.67 (1.25–5.72)	2.37 (1.09–5.19) *	1.15 (0.27–4.80)	2.12 (0.94–4.79)
Others	1.39 (0.47–4.10)	1.64 (0.46–5.91)	0.71 (0.27–1.86)	0.29 (0.07–1.19)	0.58 (0.19–1.75)	0.53 (0.13–2.08)	0.94 (0.39–2.23)	1.68 (0.69–4.07)	0.53 (0.12–2.31)	1.22 (0.48–3.13)
Knowledge score
Poor (ref)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Good	1.31 (0.60–2.84)	8.08 (1.86–35.18) *	1.86 (0.96–3.60)	1.80 (0.58–0.60)	1.23 (0.54–2.82)	2.10 (0.57–7.74)	1.27 (0.72–2.24)	0.92 (0.54–1.59)	4.71 (1.00–22.15) *	1.12 (0.64–1.99)
Nagelkerke’s R2	0.067	0.135	0.046	0.096	0.044	0.100	0.07	0.05	0.145	0.156
-2Log likelihood	243.43	211.16	332.77	167.18	226.70	139.29	377.05	396.15	138.19	370.76
Chi-square	11.62	22.70	9.43	13.20	7.16	12.01	15.58	11.29	18.19	36.47
p-value	0.39	0.01	0.58	0.28	0.78	0.36	0.15	0.41	0.07	0.00

* Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level.

). Respondents with environmental-related university education (OR 7.46; p < 0.05), pre-university education (OR 5.15; p < 0.05)) and non-environmental university education (OR 4.31; p < 0.05) showed higher odds of stopping the use of single-use plastics in their daily lives than respondents with up to secondary level education. This shows that education is an important factor in improving plastic pollution-related attitudes among people. This was further confirmed when students reported higher odds in favour of banning the use of single-use plastics in Malaysia (OR 2.37; p < 0.05). On the other hand, professionals showed significantly higher agreement that taxation on single-use plastics is an appropriate action towards reducing plastic use (OR 3.41; p < 0.05). Respondents with good knowledge reported significantly higher odds that plastic pollution in Malaysia is severe (OR 8.08; p < 0.05) and that plastic waste ending up in landfills can harm the environment and human health (OR 4.71; p < 0.05).

3.6. Association between Practice with Socio-Demographic Factors and Knowledge Status

In comparison to younger ones (18–30 years), respondents aged 31–45 years were highly willing to separate plastic waste from their household waste (OR 4.39; p < 0.05), recycle plastic waste (OR 4.16; p < 0.05), use reusable bags for grocery shopping (OR 4.75; p < 0.05) and participate in plastic pollution related awareness campaigns (OR 6.25; p < 0.05) (

Table 6. Binary logistic regression of different variables of practice with socio-demographic variable and knowledge status (values are odd ratio followed by 95% confidence interval in parenthesis).

Explanatory Variable	Separation of Plastic Waste	Recycling of Plastic Waste	Reusable Bag(s) in Shopping	Reusable Container(s) in Takeaways	Frequent Purchase of Plastic Products	Participation in Campaigns
Gender
Male (ref)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Female	1.01 (0.55–1.87)	1.42 (0.79–2.57)	0.85 (0.45–1.60)	0.59 (0.33–1.06)	1.69 (0.64–4.52)	1.27 (0.60–2.69)
Age range (years)
18–30 (ref)
31–45	4.39 (1.67–11.55) *	4.16 (1.60–10.82) *	4.75 (1.70–13.30) *	1.28 (0.52–3.11)	0.88 (0.24–3.30)	6.25 (1.81–21.51) *
Above 46	1.77 (0.62–5.01)	2.49 (0.95–6.54)	1.80 (0.67–4.80)	1.02 (0.40–2.60)	0.27 (0.05–1.58)	1.94 (0.45–8.34)
Highest education level
Up to secondary (ref)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Pre-university	1.03 (0.33–3.26)	1.34 (0.45–4.01)	1.42 (0.46–4.40)	1.11 (0.38–3.27)	0.93 (0.19–4.49)	1.87 (0.43–8.13)
University (Environment)	1.19 (0.36–3.93)	1.34 (0.43–4.24)	3.65 (1.03–12.96) *	1.58 (0.51–4.87)	0.48 (0.08–2.86)	1.02 (0.22–4.79)
University (Non-environment)	1.13 (0.40–3.20)	1.85 (0.68–5.06)	1.47 (0.53–4.14)	1.80 (0.67–4.84)	0.69 (0.15–3.06)	1.41 (0.36–5.51)
Occupation
Jobs in government & private sectors (ref)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Professional	1.43 (0.44–4.70)	1.30 (0.39–4.34)	0.49 (0.15–1.62)	0.44 (0.14–1.39)	6.78 (1.31–34.99) *	1.25 (0.31–5.12)
Student	1.96 (0.81–4.73)	1.67 (0.78–3.66)	3.39 (1.52–7.53) *	1.13 (0.53–2.38)	1.25 (0.34–4.53)	2.75 (0.83–9.09)
Others	1.36 (0.53–3.51)	1.48 (0.60–3.67)	2.18 (0.83–5.68)	1.51 (0.63–3.64)	3.58 (0.88–14.64)	0.77 (0.22–2.68)
Knowledge score
Poor (ref)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Good	1.64 (0.93–2.87)	1.75 (1.00–3.06) *	1.67 (0.88–3.16)	1.43 (0.83–2.47)	0.24 (0.07–0.86) *	1.71 (0.89–3.29)
Nagelkerke’s R2	0.067	0.089	0.131	0.046	0.133	0.082
-2Log likelihood	359.73	387.05	341.06	396.35	193.63	276.37
Chi-square	14.54	20.30	28.92	10.35	20.99	15.64
p-value	0.20	0.04	0.002	0.49	0.03	0.15

* Significant at 0.05 level.

). Respondents with an environmental-related university education were more likely to use reusable shopping bags (OR 3.65; p < 0.05). Furthermore, students were more likely to bring reusable shopping bags (OR 3.39; p < 0.05). On the other hand, professionals reported higher odds of purchasing plastic products (OR 6.78; p < 0.05). In some instances, respondents’ knowledge is positively associated with good practices. For example, respondents with good knowledge showed higher odds of recycling plastic waste (OR 1.75; p < 0.05) and lower odds of purchasing plastic-made products (OR 0.24; p < 0.05) than those with poor knowledge.

4. Discussion

4.1. KAP Scores

Results show that respondents have relatively low average knowledge scores, high average attitude scores, and low average practice scores across all socio-demographic groups. Elderly respondents have shown higher odds of plastic pollution-related knowledge. It shows that respondents with higher educational levels, especially those who took environmental-related subjects, have a higher knowledge status. Besides that, respondents aged between 31–45 years have significantly higher odds of attitudes (OR4.019) and practices (OR4.056) among the age groups. This suggests that millennials are more socially conscious as they grew up with the internet and social media, are more open-minded and optimistic and are more conscious about the environment and their health [44]. Respondents that studied environmental-related subjects had a better understanding of plastic pollution as they demonstrated higher odds (OR10.343). Environmental education, involving projects and other actions, is considered an important way to mitigate environmental problems, such as plastic pollution [42]. Research reported that the respondents with higher educational levels have higher knowledge of plastic pollution [42]. Age and education are considered common predictors for both knowledge and environmentally significant behaviour [45]. Higher-educated people value scientific knowledge as an important source of information, and so their involvement in citizen science programs might be an effective intervention strategy for motivating others to reduce plastic pollution [42].

4.2. Attitude, Practices, and Associated Socio-Demographic Factors

Most of the respondents have a positive attitude toward reducing plastic pollution in Malaysia. Single-use plastic is a major source of plastic pollution in Malaysia [15]. Respondents aged between 31 and 46 years have shown higher odds (OR 2.75) towards banning single-use plastics in Malaysia, and they are optimistic (OR 7.43) about stopping using these in their daily lives. In a study in Europe, Filho et al. [21] found that respondents between the ages of 18–25 and 36–45 were among those choosing products with less plastic. Zen et al. [37] observed that consumers are more supportive of banning plastic bags in supermarkets, shopping malls, and retailers, but not its extension to traditional or public markets, night markets, or morning markets. However, consumers’ behaviour toward using less plastic also depends on the availability of alternatives, price, time, convenience, habits, reachability, and so on [46]. Respondents with higher levels of education have also shown higher odds of stopping single-use plastics. Filho et al. [21] reported that factors like educational background and age play a significant role in the level of engagement to reduce plastic usage and the actions undertaken. Any interventions aimed at reducing single-use plastics need to consider these factors.

Like attitude, 31–46-year-old respondents are significantly and highly (by 4–6 factors) willing to separate, recycle, and reuse plastic bags and join in an awareness creation program on plastic pollution. Students and respondents with education in environmental disciplines have shown significantly higher odds with regard to the use of reusable plastic bags. Filho et al. [21] also reported similar findings. Afroz et al. [16] reported that people have a positive attitude towards recycling but are less motivated to recycle. The practice of recycling itself is controlled by many factors, such as convenience, social norms, moral consideration, environmental awareness, and knowledge, regardless of educational level, gender, income, or age [36]. Environmental education in daily school scenarios can allow students to connect with environmental issues and develop positive attitudes, knowledge, and motivation to act [47].

Respondents’ good knowledge status is reflected in some of the attitudes and practices towards plastic pollution, which indicate that respondents’ knowledge can influence their attitudes and practices. Respondents with good knowledge were more concerned about the severity of plastic pollution in Malaysia (OR 8.08) and the harmful effects of plastic waste that ended up in landfills (OR 4.71). They have reported recycling plastic waste (OR 1.75) and purchasing fewer plastic products (OR 0.24). According to De Pretto et al. [48], knowledgeable people are more concerned about environmental pollution and engage in protective behaviours.

4.3. Implications

Single-use plastics are responsible for a large part of the overconsumption, mismanagement, and pollution problems in Malaysia [49] and probably elsewhere as well. This study also confirmed that single-use plastics are important environmental problems, and respondents showed their willingness to reduce their consumption of these plastic products. The Malaysian government recognizes the severity of the single-use plastics problem and has implemented interventions such as prohibiting free plastic bags in grocery stores and supermarkets and imposing a 0.20 Malaysian Ringgit per bag levy, which has resulted in some positive outcomes (e.g., raising people’s awareness) [15,16,37]. The government has also developed and been implementing the “Roadmap Towards Zero Single-use Plastics 2018–2030” [50]. This phased, evidence-based, and participatory roadmap aimed to adopt an environmentally sound integrated policy framework towards ending single-use plastics by 2030. According to a newspaper report, even though several state governments banned the use of single-use plastic straws in 2019 in accordance with the Roadmap 2018-30, it was not working effectively [51], most likely due to a lack of awareness of the plastic problem, a lack of suitable alternatives, and a lack of citizen participation in the development and implementation of interventions. Findings from this study also indicate that most of the respondents lack knowledge of plastic pollution, so they exhibit poor practices as well, even though they have a relatively higher attitude. The government needs to invest more in citizen science-related programs aimed at improving peoples’ knowledge and the development of eco-friendly, affordable, and readily available food packaging materials (e.g., bioplastics).

5. Study Limitations

One of the limitations of this study is that the number of respondents was not enough to represent the whole study area, Malaysia. According to Morse [52], at least 400 responses are needed with a ±5% margin of error for a population size greater than 100,000. Even though the questionnaire was reviewed by experts and pre-tested, some questions seem unclear and confusing, so respondents might be biased in answering those questions. Since only English was used in the questionnaire, responses from different races or local communities could not be recorded. A future study should also consider additional factors such as the respondent’s living area (rural or urban), income, nature-connectedness, and membership in nature clubs or associations to perform a more comprehensive analysis of different aspects. Besides that, respondents in this study were mostly students or younger generations, which may not represent the overall demography of Malaysia. Physical interviews with targeted respondents might be useful to minimize this limitation.

6. Conclusions

This study provides a general understanding of respondents’ KAP towards plastic pollution in Malaysia. The findings could serve as a baseline for authorities to develop guidelines or strategies for reducing plastic pollution in the country. Results showed that most of the respondents had poor knowledge and practiced towards plastic pollution but relatively higher attitudes, with some significant influence of the socio-demographic factors on the KAP scores, such as age, education, and occupation. To convert good attitudes into practices, authorities may undertake interventions such as environmental awareness creation, incorporating plastic pollution topics into formal and informal education, and providing recycling facilities in nearby localities. Authorities may also provide incentives (e.g., nominal cash vouchers) to encourage residents’ pro-environmental behaviours, such as recycling and avoiding single-use plastic materials.